Ah man, it either IS or ISN'T. It's understandable to get caught up in them, but they are a panacea.
Statistics won't tell you squat. It can hint, but that hint can be wrong.
Like every economist. It's because they rely on bs, that is incomplete, and doesn't take into all the factors that the real living breathing world contains.
Besides, even then anyone can find 5 guys, some of whom had a few similar numbers (which if aggregated over multiple seasons leads to even more variability) that eventually succeeded, and some that didn't. You're not noticing a real trend. Your imagining it. It could be true, It could not be. Considering what it is based off of, I'd say no, it's not true. But even if it isn't doesn't mean it won't be right based off luck. After all the end result is, good/not good. So it has a theoretical 50 percent chance being right no matter what the reason actually made the difference. (which in of itself would probably be unquantifiable)
I could point out 5 MLB from the 90's that had 40-50 hr year(s). Then say what would you project going forward. But then again, we're also talking about a much harder to explain phenomenon. Mediocrity. A mediocre QB doesn't start, or at least not for long.
It's much easier to say, that guy can hit, rather than project a goobly-**** sample of stats from all sorts of different situations, time eras, etc; and use that to form your opinion.)
But there's steroids, there's smaller parks, there's expansion, even the ball has been questioned.
Anyone remember Kevin Mitchell, or Don Mattingly, Darryl Strawberry, or our own Gonzo. There were some who had amazing drop offs, like Brady Anderson. For many different reasons, but had I compared them with the numbers of some of the greats, Mays, Ruth, Aaron, I probably come to the same ML type conclusion with other QB's. Hell someone could come in and show 20 QB's who had those stats and turned into nothing later, and then come to the incorrect conclusion that just because these other 20 guys have not made it, ML won't. It works (or in this case, DOESN'T WORK) BOTH WAYS.
And if I did that with MLB players, none of it would have pointed to a guy named Barry Bonds, to be the major league home run leader. (his HR totals SUCKED early). If anything, it would have pointed to Mark McGwire with his 49 hrs his rookie year (baseball terms: rookie year).
There is no valid statistic metric that would have called that in advance.
You can find nice old fellow that once murdered someone, and a priest who constantly acts like an *****. The world is full of variation on every level.
ML either will suck or not. For as many QB's had success after similar numbers, there are tons that never did. Even taking EVERY QB THAT EVER PLAYED, IN ANY PROFESSIONAL LEAGUE (or simply the bigger ones NFL/AFL/AAFL/USFL) would not show you enough to pinpoint exactly what ML will do, based on the stats, nor get close of enough of an accurate prediction to tell whether or not he will be 'passable' or a decent starter for around 5 years.
He either WILL or he WON'T. Statistics can sometimes show a trend, or lack of one, or something, but you have to use OTHER info to make the determination.
Beware the bias, random events that universe not in a test tube vacuum that statistics doesn't account for.
This is also why the economists never see the big trouble ahead, and thus charlatan snake oil salesmen. Because nature isn't symmetrical, it only tries to FIND it. When it's not, big changes ahead. They aren't linear, they aren't controlled, they are WOW it changed BIG TIME moments....where the hell did that come from???
So using things that similarly led Wall Street astray, also won't help very much in figuring out whether or not ML is going to be good. He either has the talent, mentality, and body for it, along with a million other inter-playing factors, or doesn't. Hell a 'Brinks' truck down the wrong road at the wrong time can do that too.
It's fun, but meaningless to talk about this aspect as it's even more 'out there' to a whole other order of magnitude, than a fan talking about their team on a forum. It's much better and truer, and closer to reality to talk about actual components that go into whether or not ML can be our QB. His mentality, arm strength, etc, etc. (yes there are far more than those, and on both sides).
I have no problem explaining this out, because the world needs to understand that WE CANNOT put our faith into such blind metrics and ideas. It's bs. In the long run, anyone that depends on these, will be left holding the bag. The world DEPENDS (but doesn't have to) on them. Think about it. Good luck.
